Tag Archives: politics

“He’s unelectable.” That was how Donald Trump characterized Ron Paul in remarks which no doubt infuriated many Paul supporters (with the exception of this one.) After all, Donald Trump has never won an election for public office, and his political experience is limited to having merely contemplated running a few times, as well as having participated in recreational golf outings with the likes of Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh. Ron Paul on the other hand is an accomplished congressman with many years of experience, who made a surprisingly strong showing in the 2008 republican primaries. However, while Ron Paul is still the most popular choice for the alternate right, the fact is he will be 76 years old in 2012. That’s probably too old for a presidential candidate with all the rigors involved in the office. Indeed he would be 80 if he were to run for re-election. We’ve all seen how the presidency has aged much younger men, barely in their 40′s and early 50′s. Not saying he couldn’t do it or that it would be impossible, but it is unlikely.

All of which brings us to the question, “If not Paul, who?” Some have floated former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson’s name as someone to carry the torch, but Gary Johnson is an open borders, free trade, libertarian. The issues he is weakest on are unfortunately, those that are most crucial to many paleoconservatives. Not to mention, Gary Johnson doesn’t yet have the name recognition with the American public to successfully mount a campaign for president.

Of all the remaining possible candidates, only one comes to mind who doesn’t toe the neoconservative line on foreign and domestic policy, yet is still mainstream enough to bridge the gap and attract some of them(as well as some democrats and independents.)

That man is none other than Donald Trump. Now, I know what you’re thinking…“Trump? Give me a break!” but just for a moment… as the great Pat Buchanan would say, consider:
Donald Trump staunchly defended Arizona’s controversial immigration law last year on Larry King, saying the federal government had failed to do anything and that he personally wouldn’t mind if someone stopped him on the street and asked to see his papers(the law itself doesn’t even go that far.)

Trump also opposes the NAFTA/free trade dogma and would introduce tariffs on foreign goods, as well as renegotiate our appallingly lopsided trade agreements with Korea, China, and Japan. He holds the paleocon views on trade while not being in the tank with the unions. He is not an anti-corporate, big government, tax and spend liberal who will leave businesses awash in paperwork and regulations.

When it comes to our nation’s bankruptcy, Trump has been there before himself and came back. He showed the tenacity and problem solving ability to get out of an incredibly dire financial situation. The US government desperately needs some of those skills, and they need them yesterday.

Of the Iraq war Trump called it “a total disaster.” He later stated “Look, everything in Washington has been a lie. Weapons of mass destruction — it was a total lie. It was a way of attacking Iraq.” Trump opined that George W Bush was the worst president in history(a remark made prior to Obama taking office.)

What about social issues? It’s true that Trump is no Rick Santorum, but if you really believe issues like abortion or gay marriage are the most pressing concerns of our time, and that priorities like curbing neocon-adventurism, reducing the deficit, restricting immigration, and revitalizing our manufacturing capabilities, are all second tier items that can go on the back burner…then someone like Palin or Santorum should really be your candidate. It’s also worth noting that Trump defended Carrie Prejean’s remarks on gay marriage in the 2009 Miss USA pageant. So, though he may be lenient on social issues(just as Goldwater conservatives or libertarians would be) it’s clear he’s not going to bow to the PC crowd or usher in Canadian style thought police. He recently even went as far as to claim he’s pro-life and against gay marriage.

The biggest question regarding Trump for republicans is whether he really believes any of what he says. In other words can we trust him? Is he the shapeshifting ideological play-doh equivalent of Mitt Romney, only with with weirder hair? They cite the fact that his track record of candidate endorsements and political analysis is all over the map. Perhaps though, the fact that Trump looks at candidates and issues individually is evidence of a person who can think objectively, who takes into consideration many factors in decisions and doesn’t have tunnel vision. This is unlike so many who stubbornly cling to an ideology or business plan even in the face of contrary facts. It all points to why he has been a successful businessman and has made so many comebacks. He has always challenged himself and been open to new ideas.

From an electoral standpoint, Trump has the advantage of being from the northeast while not exhibiting the traits of a Neocon or Rockefeller republican. His populist beliefs could make him competitive in many midwestern states. His east coast appeal could potentially win in states conservatives have written off for decades(or at the very least force the democrats to campaign harder there.) He could achieve this without sacrificing the south, since he wisely doesn’t display hostility towards social conservatism and appears mildly sympathetic to it.

Trump is polling within 3 points of Obama with absolutely no money spent and no real campaigning other than just dropping his name out there to the jackals in the press. Donald Trump has the brains, the money, the imagination and the hair. He should run for president, and conservatives should seriously consider getting behind him.

So I tried to go to the show at The Clubhouse where The Middle East was playing, but it was sold out. You’d think someone who’s been around as long as I have would have no trouble getting into one of these shindigs via guest lists, fair weather friends and whatever. One of the drawbacks of being a reclusive artist though is that you never make the connections with the sleazy promoter people to finagle your way onto the guest lists of these jams. For someone who goes out nearly every single night, I have very little interest in that sort of thing. It’s been ages since I went to see a live band play locally with any sincere intent other than shameless self-promotion and meeting attractive girls. Anyhow, I can confess to never having heard any of “The Middle East’s” songs or “Frightened Rabbit” for that matter(who canceled due to the volcano eruption, grounded European flights debacle.) Now that I no longer have a hip young stylist as a girlfriend, I am exposed to even less new music as I listen to what I want to listen to like 100% of the time now as opposed to being coerced into broadening with the threat of imminent bitchiness if I don’t stop being so selfish.

And with that you’re probably wondering “Where the fuck is he going with this entry?” Well, nowhere important really… other than last week as I was eating some chicken from El Pollo Supremo, I picked up a copy of The New Times(which is almost never a good idea for anyone with a conservative bone in their body)and opened to a random page where there was an interview with director Kevin Smith. Now I never liked any of Kevin Smith’s movies except sort of Mallrats…but even that’s not because I think it’s great, I just love going to the mall. I am a mallrat. Also any kid who was a skateboarder in the 90′s wanted to see one of our own, Jason Lee(my first proper skateboard was the Blind Jason Lee model with The Grinch on it.) I think Kevin Smith just tries too hard to be witty, and the dialogue always comes off as so phony. The scripts never dig down deep to uncover any genuine sincerity. Not to mention I think that “Jay and Silent Bob” are the two most unfunny, annoying character creations on the planet. Also, he’s from New Jersey or something, and like Billy Zoom, I almost universally hate east coast accents. There’s a certain inherent belligerence to them. However, I was shocked to see him say that he “can’t stand going to live shows, because you can never hear the lyrics” which I can definitely relate to. It all just depends what you enjoy about music and what you look to get out of it. Some people like to rock and run around bumping into each other. Others get off on the loudness and energy of the band. For me though, I’m almost always looking for something in the lyrics to validate and vindicate whatever I’m currently feeling, and I picture some other person out there hearing the song and understanding how I feel. If it sounds good and is in tune well that’s just a bonus. Like I have fantasies of walking into a club where there’s a jukebox. There’s hardly anyone there except some girl that I used to like, have a crush on, banged etc… and so I put in a few bucks and play a song on the jukebox(think “Alone Again Or” by the band “Love” or the Rolling Stones’ “She’s a Rainbow”) that somehow if she would just stop talking to the ugly trashy dude she’s with and pay attention to it she would know exactly where I’m coming from and some sort of satisfactory closure or grand re-opening would be realized. Of course the stars would never align that way. The point is that people are not all looking to get the same things out of art. And understanding what someone else is looking for is the first step to appreciating why they may not have the same perception and appreciation of things that you enjoy.

Anyhow, my connection with Kevin Smith was short lived as a few lines down in the interview he makes the following ignorant statement:
“I thought, ‘Phoenix is hot, people wear less clothing, so they’d be less inhibited and less conservative,’” he says. “Or maybe it’s the opposite — since people are wearing less clothing, they feel the need to be the morality police.”

First of all, in typical intellectually incurious, east coast fashion this shows Kevin Smith understands absolutely nothing about conservatism. Conservatives like sexy, feisty, classically beautiful women like Raquel Welch whereas liberal female icons are people like Ellen Degeneres and Kathy Griffin. Furthermore it’s the left wing NAGS and stick-in-the-mud feminazi types like Gloria Steinem who are always whining about the objectification of women, and protesting the attractiveness of magazine models, while lobbying for the right to be fat not have to shave their legs, armpits or wear make up. Conservatives on the other hand see men and women as having definite biological differences and therefore fulfilling natural gender roles… which is why despite all the social conditioning and youth indoctrination people will never completely be a neutered, unisex species because there are certain uncontrollable biological forces at work. They can be bent, but not broken, not until science actually has perfected the capability of physically altering those forces, at which time men will be obsolete. But until then, women will want to wear scantily clad clothing and attract men, and men will want to have sex with as many girls as they can get there grubby little hands on. That’s conservatism, grounded in reality.

As for the religious nuts and the puritans…well they’re hypocrites of course as they turn out to be the biggest pervs of all, but even they recognize the importance of gender roles and can appreciate sexiness, just not when it’s flaunted and paraded about in polite society. Rather they prefer it within the private context of loyal, steadfast relationships and I will resist the urge to say… seminaries and airport bathrooms…but here’s a shocking fact, Catholics and Jews are overwhelmingly democrats. It’s only WASPs who lean republican. That’s the birds and the bees for you.